In 2002 a Danish group of researchers headed by medical doctor Poul Thorsen, Aarhus University, repudiated a connection between MMR-vaccine and the occurrence of autism. The following year, 2003, Poul Thorsen’s team succeded in repudiating a connection between mercury in vaccines and the occurrence of autism. These scientific results, published in prestigious medical journals, were broadcast the world over and received a huge amount of international attention.

Now – less than a decade later – maybe the international public, or at least those concerned with the expanding epidemic of autism, should pay attention to what is going on these days in Denmark.

In that country the Prosecution of Eastern Jutland has charged the former autism researcher Thorsen with coarse tax evasion concerning an amount of fully 6.4 million Danish crowns.

For this deed the Prosecution claims that Poul Thorsen must be punished with prison. Thorsen on the other hand - according to a leading Danish news agency - claims that he is not guilty.

In the indictment it is stated, that Poul Thorsen during the years 2001-2005 has evaded income from fees, salary or the like for 6.430.768 danish crowns. By these illegal acts the public has been denied 3.470.020 danish crowns in tax.

He is furthermore accused of having evaded paying the state 514.455 crowns in contribution to the labour market from 2001-2005.

“NO COMMENTS” FROM AARHUS UNIVERSITY

The management at Aarhus University declined to comment on the charges. – “We neither comment on tax cases belonging to present or former employees. This we consider a private matter,” says chief of press relations at Aarhus University, Anders Correll to Danish Daily Information.

The charge has been prepared by the department of organized crime at the police of Eastern Jutland. The authorities are asking for prison time and a fine of at least 3.984.000 Danish crowns.

According to police assessor Lars Petersen, the police of Eastern Jutland had finished the investigation of the tax case of the former researcher as long ago as March 2009, when some “complications” occurred. For that reason a meeting in court was held during that spring to hear the opinion of the accused on whether eventual new charges should be included in the pending case or be treated independently. It was decided to keep the two cases separated.

The other case that is still being investigated by the police of Eastern Jutland involves Aarhus University.

The public learned that something was wrong at Aarhus University, when a local newspaper during February 2010 wrote that the university had been deceived and was lacking 10 million Danish crowns at the bottom line because of fraud.

However already on January 22, 2010, Aarhus University had issued a statement in English informing the public, that the university no longer collaborated with its former employee, Poul Thorsen.

The statement that renounces the researcher was signed by the managing director of Aarhus University, Jørgen Jørgensen.

THORSEN CONTINUED TO BE DATA-RESPONSIBLE

However strange it may seem, according to the homepage of Danish Data Protection Agency some level of connection has continued to exist between Aarhus University and the researcher.

If one searched the name of “Poul Thorsen” as late as of March 1, 2011, it appeared, that he was still data-responsible for three Danish data registers. Two of those were about autism!

But as of March 14, 2011 Poul Thorsen appears no longer to be data-responsible for any Danish register.

However, according to the only very recently deleted information from the official homepage of the Danish Data Protection Agency, collaboration continued between Poul Thorsen, who was registered as “private researcher , the American health agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Aarhus University and the Danish vaccine manufacturer Statens Serum Institute.

A 16 MILLION DOLLAR GRANT

According to information previously published in the Danish Daily Information, Poul Thorsen headed the research center North Atlantic Neuro-Epidemiology Alliances (NANEA). The center was established in the year 2000 with a research grant of 7.8 million dollar from CDC. The grant was prolonged in 2007 with further $8.2 million dollars – also from CDC.

The grant was administered by Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation under direction of the researcher.

However, according to the Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation’s annual report for 2009 the agency – in agreement with CDC - stopped administrating the grant as of November 23, 2009. From that date Aarhus University became administrator of the grant. Two months later followed the highly unusual statement, where Aarhus University renounced its former high profile researcher.

The charge for coarse tax evasion has been declared for Poul Thorsen who, according to the police, met in person at the police station in Odense to hear the charges.

The case is planned to begin on april 13, 2011 at the court in Aarhus..

It includes an email from Mashalyn Yeargan Allsop, a CDC epidemiologist, to the deputy director of the National Immunization Programme, Jose Cordero:

'Jose

'As we discussed on Friday, we have become aware through Poul Thorsen of an exciting opportunity to study the role of MMR vaccine and autism using several registries/existing studies and the repository of biologic specimens and laboratory capabilities in Denmark. Attached below is a proposal for such a study. Poul will be leaving on Thursday to travel to Denmark where he will be meeting with the PIs for the proposed study on June 6th. We would like to be able to have Poul say whether it is likely that CDC (NIP) can fund the study, if NIP is interested. The proposed budget is included; there may be additional sources of funding (in addition to NIP) but we are not certain at this time. Unfortunately, the DD Branch does not have much (if any) $$ to fund the study, but we do have the expertise that we have developed due to the autism surveillance in Atlanta and the MMR/autism casecontrol study. I will be out of the office tomorrow, but you may contact Diana or Poul if you have questions. Thank you so much for considering this proposal.

'Marshalyn'

Yazbak notes:-

'The NIP Mission is described in 145 words that do not include the word autism...It is evident from the above e-mail that:
􀂃 The “proposed” study had already been planned and discussed in Denmark, at the DD (Developmental Disabilities) Branch of the CDC and with key NIP people
􀂃 Dr. José Cordero had the authority to promptly approve NIP funding of the“autism” study
􀂃 Dr. Cordero who was responsible for the “planning, coordination, and conduct of immunization activities nationwide” could not possibly appropriate funds - or in
any way support a study - that COULD potentially have compromised the MMR vaccination program
􀂃 Before the study was started, it was guaranteed NOT to find any connection between MMR and regressive autism.
Drs. Diana Schendel, a CDC epidemiologist (Diana) and Dr. Poul Thorsen (Poul) went on to co-author the study in question.

'It is no wonder at all then that DS 2002 that was

1. Funded by the CDC
2. Co-authored by a CDC epidemiologist
3. And evidently supported by the CDC’s “expertise that we have developed due to the autism surveillance in Atlanta and the MMR/autism case-control study” did indeed
conclude that MMR did not cause autism in Denmark and did justify the CDC’s financial investment.

'The “additional source of funding” in the US was the National Alliance for Autism Research (NAAR). The organization has asserted: “To be clear, our unrestricted donation of $25,000 from Merck in 2000 was not used to fund the Danish study – or any other vaccine-related studies.”...'

"The management at Aarhus University declined to comment on the charges.

– 'We never comment on tax cases belonging to present or former employees. This we consider a private matter,” says chief of press relations at Aarhus University, Anders Correll to Danish Daily Information.'

This statement raises a question: what does the management at the CDC say? Has anyone asked them for a comment?

The specific page at the CDC website which mentions "The CDC-Denmark Program" has review dates:

Page last reviewed: December 29, 2010
Page last updated: December 29, 2010
Content source: Division of Birth Defects, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Toward the bottom of the page, there is a section entitled "International Research." The only "international research mentioned is "The CDC-Denmark Program."

The explanatory paragraph says:

The CDC–Denmark Program was set up to look at many public health issues. The program highlights the work done using Danish national public health data systems. These systems are not found anywhere else. They include more than 200 long-term disease and administrative registries. They also include the stored newborn blood samples of all children born in Denmark from 1982 onward. These systems are linked with one another. Thus, they can be used to make data sets with information on very large numbers of people. These data sets cover long periods of time. Therefore, they can be used to look at health trends and disease traits. They can also be used to study less common risk factors or diseases in more detail and with more accuracy than can be done anywhere else.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)–Denmark Program was set up to look at many public health issues. The program highlights the work done using Danish national public health data systems. These systems are not found anywhere else. They include more than 200 long-term disease and administrative registries. They also include the stored newborn blood samples of all children born in Denmark from 1982 onward.

These systems are linked with one another. Thus, they can be used to make data sets with information on very large numbers of people.

These data sets cover long periods of time. Therefore, they can be used to look at health trends and disease traits. They can also be used to study less common risk factors or diseases in more detail and with more accuracy than can be done anywhere else.

Right now, CDC funding in Denmark is supporting studies of autism, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. All of these studies have one or more of the following basic activities:

• Improving existing registries, for example, the Danish National Cerebral Palsy Register: This registry is helping to gather better and more complete data on cerebral palsy. The result will be a high-quality registry
of all people in Denmark with cerebral palsy. These actions will make it easier to look at and answer questions about the frequency, traits, causes, and outcomes of cerebral palsy.

• Doing registry-based studies, such as cohort or case-control studies of autism, cerebral palsy, and Down syndrome: The overall purpose of these studies is to look at how often certain conditions or diseases occur
over time. They will also look at a number of characteristics and risk factors for people with these conditions.

• Doing studies based on the Danish National Birth Cohort (DNBC) of 100,000 women and their children, including follow-up: One study going on now is called Lifestyle During Pregnancy: Neuropsychological Effects at Age 5. The purpose of this study is to look at the effects of different levels of prenatal alcohol use on children over time. It is also looking at other things women might do while they are pregnant that might affect their children over time.

• Coming up with and using laboratory methods for biologic samples, such as stored newborn screening dried blood spots and DNBC maternal serum samples: The overall purpose here is to come up with and use methods to measure many different chemicals in blood that could be markers for disease.

The CDC–Denmark Program is helping CDC to reach its goals by using Denmark’s data systems to look for answers to questions for which there are not now data elsewhere.

The CDC–Denmark Program also is being used to help create a broader U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) program. This program will help HHS and Denmark work together in medical and public health research. This could include sharing information, starting new programs, helping with training, and supporting research that will aid all parties.

The CDC–Denmark Program has led to several publications. These include reports on studies of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism, and of cerebral palsy in children born using in vitro fertilization.

For further information:
Tel: 404-498-3860 (for a full list of publications on the CDC–Denmark Program)

Barbara:
May be the truth about genocide of millions of children by toxic vaccines, committed by pharma-CDC cartel has just reached the conscience of some politicians, who have been closing their eyes to this ongoing crime co far. May be they realized that the US is ruined and without any future with most of its children seriously damaged by vaccines - neurologically, immunologically, reproductively and in many other ways. May be these politicians are looking now for a scapegoat to pay the price for crimes of pharma-CDC. Thorsen is a good candidate for such goat. He took a bribe and produced fraudulent data, which were then used by CDC to cover up their crimes. If he goes to prison, maybe he will start talking and we will find out who was the true donor of his grant, administered to him by CDC agents. Somehow it is easy to guess, who paid him this blood money, but it is important to find out who at CDC collaborated with him in this crime. They all should rot in prison for the rest of their lives.

Thank you for keeping us all up to date on the proceedings over there. It will be interesting to see what evidence comes out at the trial. How does the system work there, compared to US courts? What will be the order of events?

I just love all the muckraking journalism that goes on at AoA. One day the writers here will be rewarded with great praise and recognition for uncovering some of the most inconvenient truths about vaccines and those who make and promote them.

Is Thorsen working in the U.S. currently? If so, will he be extradited to Denmark for this trial?

The trial is ostensibly about taxes owed to the Danish government.

However, obviously the U.S. government is involved too, because the money involved is NIH funding for a grant.

Federal grant money is subject to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. Has anyone in the U.S. submitted an FOIA request?

Thorsen has previously worked for, I think, Duke University.

Does he still work there? Would they be required to answer "yes" or "no" to such a question? Has anyone asked Duke University (or whichever place he is thought to work, or thought to have worked) if is still on their payroll?

I agree with all, especially Zofie. It's becoming obvious that the "memo" Sebelius sent to "someone" to make the thimerosal issue "go away" was backed by US tax payer dollars to be included in the effort! How could he pay taxes on the "dirty" money without admission that it was a payoff to provide a study on course with the current standing of the CDC, that vaccines were safe. How could he handle that, could he list an extra two million as income, when it was the bribe to force a study outcome? Is there a line on tax forms for "bribes"?I hope this is not the case, because it would open the possibility that it's going on and has for awhile to the detriment of the health of children worldwide and would be a horrific crime. Maybe the tax evasion will open the story a bit and some truth will be exposed. I can ,at this point, only think the worst.

I have no doubt that this man will get out of jail. The same evil people who have made millions of dollars thanks to his highly suspect reports, will be forced to cough up and pay the taxes due to the Danish people. They simply cannot afford further financial forensic investigations.

As for the American Taxpayer, they should now be shouting from the rooftops demanding that the CDC disclose fully the source of funding paid to this man.

Last July, an unknown agitator using the pseudonym Marco Berns interrupted an investigation of scientific misconduct with e-mails and online posts accusing researcher Silvia Bulfone-Paus of the Research Center Borstel in Germany -- whose lab was the focus of the investigation -- of scientific fraud. The media dubbed the actions an outrageous smear campaign, but if this person had reason to believe that the local commission investigating the case might delay, play down or even suppress incriminating evidence, perhaps going public was the only way to see that justice was served.

Ten years ago, a colleague and I blew the whistle on Alexander Kugler, a physician at the Goettingen University hospital in Germany, who we suspected was involved in the treatment of 500 kidney cancer patients with an illegal and ill-defined tumour vaccine. After a local ombudsman commission failed to prevent the treatment, which was later revealed to not have been approved by the hospital's ethics committee, we turned to the late Peter Hans Hofschneider, then a virologist at the Max-Planck-Institute of Biochemistry, Munich, and a pioneer of molecular biology in Germany who had helped to bring to light a notorious German science scandal in the late 1990s.

After summarizing the evidence against Kugler in a letter to the German Research Foundation (DFG), Hofschneider immediately arranged contact with two journalists and encouraged us to go public with our allegations. The ensuing media coverage in 2001 was a sweeping success, prompting the university hospital to immediately halt the industry-sponsored large-scale clinical trial of the vaccine, and Nature Medicine to retract a highly-praised article published the previous year.

The public outcry was also strong enough to kick-start an investigative panel by the DFG. While the investigation by the university commission had found Kugler fully responsible for the data manipulation and illegal treatment of hundreds of cancer patients, the DFG investigation overruled its verdict, concluding that Rolf-Hermann Ringert, the department head and senior author of the retracted paper, was the true culprit of the misconduct.

The Goettingen case clearly demonstrates that going public can force authorities to act swiftly and investigate thoroughly. Unfortunately, the expert investigative science journalists involved in the unravelling of the scandal have since retired. Nowadays, German investigative science journalists are in short supply. Whistleblowers are more or less on their own if confronted with science crooks on the one hand and incompetent or negligent ombudsman commissions on the other -- a situation I found myself in 3 years ago.

I suspected something was amiss in a paper I had co-authored about a receptor involved in the inflammation of the abdominal lining in mice after I was unable to reproduce part of the published findings. When I asked the senior author of our paper for access to the original data files, he refused, prompting me to contact the DFG to help me obtain the documents.

It took a year before the senior author delivered two of the requested files, but he continued to withhold the control file. Although the DFG ombudsman acknowledged in writing any co-author's principle entitlement to access original data, and despite the fact that I have made it clear time and again that these data could prove that data manipulation had taken place, the DFG has done nothing to compel my co-author to make the data available. Two more years later, I am still waiting.

Once again, I find myself questioning the integrity and competency of a Geman ombudsman commission and am at a loss of what to do now. If the fraud is uncovered later by an uninvolved party, there is the risk that I will be accused of wrongdoing. At this point, going public might be an act of scientific self-defense.

The scientific community has to face the fact that ombudsman commissions are neither professional arbiters nor skilled investigators. We need to inquire how often they ignore the facts, or seek to conceal them, and we must not be quick to criticize those who sidestep the system by going public with their suspicions. Whistleblowers walk a fine line, and sometimes, being vocal about their knowledge is the best or only option available.

In the Borstel case, for example, it is unclear whether Berns was the perpetrator of a smear campaign, as Borstel officials and Nature seem to believe, or acting in self-defense in the face of an imminent cover up? Whatever the cause of Bern's actions, they have compelled three different investigative panels (Borstel, Luebeck, and the DFG) to deal with various aspects of the Borstel case. Hopefully, between the three of them, the truth will be revealed.

It is obvious that CDC knows very well that vaccines injure and kill, but they hired a crooked foreign scientist to provide the “objective evidence” that vaccines are safe. The major crimes are committed however by CDC. It is this whole rotten agency which should be put on Nuremberg II trial for crimes against humanity.

Yes, it is the dodgy accountancy that we are worried and concerned and focused on for the same reason that the press focused on Andy Wakefield's alleged misuse of patient medical histories and expert testimony payments--because both speak to overall credibility.

The real question is why this rather open-shut case of fraud by Thorsen isn't being covered with even a fraction of the intensity reserved for Wakefield.

Now, the answer to that last question goes to the root of our problem.